quote:

ORIGINAL: KnightofMists

quote:


Why do you hold the opinion that a slave submits once and a submissive daily is ridiculous, adaddysgirl? If not for those differences, in which way(s) do you see a slave and a sub being different from each other?

For the record: i'm asking for the sake of understanding how others arrive at a different opinion, not out any desire to change your's or anyone else's opinion

Here is how I arrive at my opinion

The foundation of my opinion is found by understanding what my personal moral principles and values with regards to a person.  It is my belief that a person is entitled to have an opportunity to have their basic needs meet that will foster a healthy well-being.  It is my belief that we have a joint responsibility to do what we are able to in foster the fulfillment of these basic needs for ones well-being.

The next step is to understand what are a person’s basic physiological and psychological needs that contribute to a person’s well-being.   The physiological needs of a person are generally simple understood as food, clothing and shelter that will maintain a person’s physical health.  The physiological needs of a person is one that is open to debate.  I personally support the arguments of Dr. Deci and Dr Ryan in which they identity three basic phychological needs; Competence, Relatedness and Autonomy.

The following is a quote from there article “Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being.
“Inductively, using the empirical process,we have identified three such needs--the needs for competence (Harter, 1978; White, 1963), relatedness (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Reis, 1994), and autonomy (deCharms, 1968; Deci, 1975)--that appear to be essential for facilitating optimal functioning of the natural propensities for growth and integration, as well as for constructive social development and personal well-being.”

The particular need that I refer to in order to answer your question is “Autonomy”.

What is Autonomy?  There is many specific definitions of autonomy but it is my understanding that autonomy that we are talking about is the personal freedom and moral independence of the person.  For many, autonomy would be contrary to their idea of Lifestyle slavery.  However, for me autonomy is not opposed to lifestyle slavery and I would say it is even a necessary requirement to protect against the dangers of Co-dependency.

Lifestyle Slavery is a consensual arrangement and therefore one exercises their personal freedom to enter into consensual slavery.  However, for the basic psychological needs to be met, a person need for autonomy must be continuously be met as well.  In other words, the person must exercise their personal freedom to decide continuously that consensual slavery is their relationship choice.

Be a person Master, Dominant, sub or slave, it is necessary that we have the personal freedom to continually make choices to live the way we desire to.  To consider that one makes this choice only once would in my opinion disregard the basic psychological need of autonomy that is necessary for a healthy well-being.

In any event, in light of the recent turn of this thread, this probably isn't very important, but i did want to say thanks 

quote:

ORIGINAL: teamnoir

I taught a class on this at the Citadel, (San Francisco), last month. Here's the summary of what I taught.

Top and bottom refer to the roles in an SM interaction. An SM interaction is defined as being an interaction who's primary focus is sensation. It could be sensation which is produced by psycho-emotional means, but it's focus is on sensation.

Dominant and submissive refer to the roles in a d/s interaction. A d/s interation is defined as being an interation who's primary focus is on power or control. It might be a power exchange, or it may simply be a naturally occurring power differential.

Master and slave refer to the roles in an m/s interaction. And M/s interaction is defined as being an interaction who's primary focus is on ownership of a person. Many people consider M/s to be a subset of d/s, some consider it to be a completely separate thing.

These terms are not mutually exclusive and often overlap. There's nothing to prevent one participant from seeing the interaction as SM while the other sees it as d/s. So long as the behaviors involved are consensual, the interaction can be just fine.

I use the word "interaction" here because all three can happen on either a scene-by-scene basis or on a relationship-by-relationship basis.

quote:

ORIGINAL: justheather

quote:

ORIGINAL: teamnoir

I taught a class on this at the Citadel, (San Francisco), last month. Here's the summary of what I taught.

Top and bottom refer to the roles in an SM interaction. An SM interaction is defined as being an interaction who's primary focus is sensation. It could be sensation which is produced by psycho-emotional means, but it's focus is on sensation.

Dominant and submissive refer to the roles in a d/s interaction. A d/s interation is defined as being an interation who's primary focus is on power or control. It might be a power exchange, or it may simply be a naturally occurring power differential.

Master and slave refer to the roles in an m/s interaction. And M/s interaction is defined as being an interaction who's primary focus is on ownership of a person. Many people consider M/s to be a subset of d/s, some consider it to be a completely separate thing.

These terms are not mutually exclusive and often overlap. There's nothing to prevent one participant from seeing the interaction as SM while the other sees it as d/s. So long as the behaviors involved are consensual, the interaction can be just fine.

I use the word "interaction" here because all three can happen on either a scene-by-scene basis or on a relationship-by-relationship basis.

Okay, here are some "definitions" I can swallow. I think many people have already embraced these ideas whether consciously or not. In fact, way back when I said that "these words already have definitions", this was pretty much what I was talking about. Here they are presented in a very concise and intelligent manner that would potentially be a good model to offer to those who do not understand the terms. The important difference between these definitions and those presented before is that that is all they do.

If my vote still counts, I vote for these.
Reason being:

*They include as opposed to exclude.
*They don't qualify interaction.
*They don't establish any sort of claim regarding intimacy, commitment, spirituality, or even the nature of consent, all of which are extremely individual and personal concepts relative to the relationship at hand.
*They don't purport to define terms while actually doing something entirely different, like label or imply relative value.

I especially like this part: These terms are not mutually exclusive and often overlap. There's nothing to prevent one participant from seeing the interaction as SM while the other sees it as d/s. So long as the behaviors involved are consensual, the interaction can be just fine.

Thank's Mr. Noir. Where were you three hundred odd posts ago?

quote:

ORIGINAL Sinergy
I simply stated my opinion about a person's behavior on these boards.  I was under the impression that internet message boards were appropriate places to express one's opinion.

quote:

ORIGINAL Sinergy
If you are referring to twicehappy, she either attempted to publicly insult me.

quote:

ORIGINAL Sinergy
As a psychiatrist, perhaps you would be willing to comment on the psychological danger of somebody vesting their emotional stability in the opinions of others.

quote:

ORIGINAL Sinergy
A number of posters have made vague comments about feeling juliaoceania has been insulting.  I have asked for examples of this, and none are forthcoming.

quote:

ORIGINAL juliaoceania

I call that childish and rude

still remains catty, petty and altogether childish to make a point to do so...

quote:

ORIGINAL juliaoceania
look up the word "may" and then get back to me with yelling in all caps... I will not even consider the rest of the post because of that.you are displaying ignorance about the topic when you can inform yourself

but just to tell ya... your posts smell fishy in my opinon.

It means this... I can post an opinion about whatever I read on CM

now I am saying... well the same back at ya!

quote:

ORIGINAL: raevyntc
After reading all of your girls spiels defending you I bet a friend of mine that the minute you arrived home and read her works of the day you would order her to apologize, even better I later found out that a couple I know made the same bet with their friends who are also posters, so much for the sincerity of that apology.

quote:

ORIGINAL: angelic

One word that keeps coming to mind (and maybe this should be another thread, if so i apologize)... how does the word 'honor/honour" come in to WIITWD? 

quote:

I think honor much like the words "true" and "real" have been so overused in reference to WIITWD that it has also become a standing joke.
 
I think it used to refer to being some one whose word meant something, some one who would do the right thing in any given situation.

quote:

her difficulty in relating to others which is a disturbing personality trait.

quote:

ORIGINAL: justheather


I especially like this part: These terms are not mutually exclusive and often overlap. There's nothing to prevent one participant from seeing the interaction as SM while the other sees it as d/s. So long as the behaviors involved are consensual, the interaction can be just fine.

quote:

ORIGINAL: justheather


Wow, that's amazing because as soon as I read your post from yesterday, I made a bet with a friend of mine (and later found out a couple I know made the same bet) that your glued-on moustache would at some point fall halfway off, revealing your twue identity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FancySeatCover

i would agree these basic terms are very simular to my understanding.

quote:

ORIGINAL: justheather
If my vote still counts, I vote for these.

quote:

ORIGINAL: OhReallyNow

this slave can say that if these had been presented, in this manner, in the first post, all of her arguments would have been useless. This is something that she could agree with.

quote:

ORIGINAL: OhReallyNow

it still does. This slave has been fortunate in her experiences to meet those who still hold honor above all else. Those who believe that their word and a handshake are binding between the parties involved.

quote:

ORIGINAL: raevyntc

Little girl, first please learn to spell; second if you wish to check my "identity" feel free to meet me at Ben Wick's Pub on Parliament Street in Toronto on the third Tuesday of the month, ask to be seated with the DSSG group. I will be the very tall silver haired gent with the nun tattooed down my arm.
 

quote:

Are all Canadian psychiatwists so vewy vewy sewious?